Academia, Bizarre

University of Missouri Chooses Chelsea Clinton To Open New Women Hall of Fame With A Ten-Minute Speech Costing $65,000

I have long admitted that, as an academic dweeb, I have long been confused by events after the eighteenth century. However, this story has me entirely perplexed. The University of Missouri at Kansas City has opened a women’s Hall of Fame and was looking for a female leader to open the event. Their choice among the millions of women in this country from generals to jurists to CEOs to governors to journalists to writers? Chelsea Clinton. Not only that, but the university paid $65,000 for Chelsea Clinton to speak only ten minutes under highly abridged appearance restrictions set by her handlers (in addition to other restrictions from a brief period for photos and water specifications).


The money goes to the Clinton Foundation, though critics have charged that the Foundation has served as a surrogate campaign platform for the Clintons (with the hiring of controversial politicos like Sidney Blumenthal) and have funded luxury travel for the Clintons.

The university actually started with Chelsea as the primary goal, but initially was told that she would not do the speech. They then tried for Hillary Clinton but was told that she would cost $275,000. They then considered “other” women besides Chelsea. That list was impressive, including obvious choices like feminist icon Gloria Steinem ($30,000) and journalists Cokie Roberts ($40,000), Tina Brown ($50,000) and Lesley Stahl ($50,000). You know, women who have made huge contributions not just to their gender but to the country. And they were substantially cheaper. What did Missouri decided? Pay more to get Chelsea for a ten-minute speech to tell people about what it is to be a female leader.

200px-University_of_Missouri_seal_bw.svgFor a university to engage in such low-grade celebrity shopping is a disgrace not just to this new hall and the University of Missouri but the academic as a whole. There are literally thousands of women who inspire both men and women with their lives and accomplishments. The University of Missouri reduced the history of female struggle to a cheap photo op with the daughter of a famous couple. They might as well have gone with a Kardashian and left it at that.

Mary Kay McPhee, UMKC Starr Education Committee chair, was thrilled by the choice and the opening ceremony even as many scratched their heads at the choice of Chelsea Clinton.

Of course UMKC is not alone. NBC was subject to withering criticism from journalists around the country for hiring Chelsea Clinton with a lucrative contract to do feel-good stories. The hire was criticized as something pushed by Clinton supporters inside the network; alienating real journalists, and producing dreadful television pieces.

Universities are supposed to be places of substance and intellectual honesty. While UMKC is not the first to take celebrity appeal over substance, this is not some Friday night concert or sports celebration. This is supposed to be a new university component honoring women who struggled and made real contributions to this world. UMKC reduced that moment to a ten-minute celebrity photo op.

Source: Washington Post

242 thoughts on “University of Missouri Chooses Chelsea Clinton To Open New Women Hall of Fame With A Ten-Minute Speech Costing $65,000”

  2. “You all need to think really hard about what you are really saying and don’t be hoodwinked.”

    Which is why you are rightfully being challenged. Our “empire” will collapse once we return to the republic we were supposed to be.

    Keep in mind one thing, slavery originated many millennia before the establishment of our nation and we ended the state endorsement of it in 77 years. We had the right principles to go to war against our own citizens to end it. Changing cultures, requires sound leadership,the right principles.and an electorate that knows the difference. We’ve have been hit and miss on the first two and we no longer have the last one.

    1. To Olly:

      On March 25, 1807 the Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade received Royal Assent and became law throughout the British Empire.

      http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/black/200_anni.asp

      The 1807 Act did not abolish slavery itself, but prohibited the traffic in slaves and Slavery was abolished in 1833.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833

      Canada’s role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade was minor but abolished in 1833.

      All this was achieved without Civil War.

      So there has to be a reason why slavery caused a Civil War, in the United States and like mostly everything else there was a strong economic undercurrent related to an economy in the South, that felt it couldn’t compete without slavery. And my understanding is that this had a great deal to do with the move by the Confederacy to break up the United States. I suppose Morals can be easily forgotten when you are making money and not having to pay your workforce.

      Yes the War was fought and it was fought by the North for the right reasons. And it tore America apart.

      But it would have been good if there had been a way to abolish slavery and not fight it at all. I guess the South viewed the North like the Colonists viewed King George?

      I would like to ask a question:

      If a group of States wanted to leave the Union, what would happen today?

      Would there be another Civil War to keep the USA together?

      Could someone of Hillary Clinton or Chelsea Clinton’s ilk become the next Lincoln and Save the Union?

      Or would the process be ruled by democratic principles and the ballot box?

      In the UK, we recently had a referendum to decide if Scotland should leave the United Kingdom.

      They voted “No”.

      So all this stuff about Constitution and Bill of Right being cast in Stone is an illusion.

      Whilst there may be all sorts of obstacles to change, if there is a will for it…. change can be effected.

      Look at Japan, Germany, France, Holland, Ireland, Israel, South Africa, Spain, Russia, Poland… etc the list is endless.

      1. ninianpeckitt – you do realize that it was Great Britain buying all that cotton from the South that caused the South to continue to cultivate cotton. In fact, the South supported the South during the Civil War.

        1. To Paul Schulte:

          Yes the British were no angels and backed the South. Some of this must have been for commercial reasons as the cotton industry was huge in the North of England but there must have been some sour grapes too and I wouldn’t be surprised if there was also an element of revenge.

          The British also started the Opium Wars so their history is by no means honorable

          They were definitely not the good guys. But as winners they wrote many of the history books. Winners always distort the facts.

  3. I said The U.S. has its own aristocracy, an Elite, just as every other country including North Korea.

  4. NP…I’m not too concerned about being hoodwinked….nor am I too concerned that most who read these columns will be hoodwinked.

  5. ninianpeckitt

    The Founders provided the understood, essential American Context, without which there is no America, in the Preamble. They did not write it and situate it to be ignored. The Preamble is not only binding, it is imperative. Government is limited to

    Justice,
    Tranquility,
    Common Defence and
    Promote General Welfare (utilities, roads, etc.).

    EVERYTHING ELSE is individual freedom and free enterprise without interference by government.

    The “blessings of liberty” are freedom and free enterprise WITHOUT interference by government.

    Taxation is to fund aforementioned, legitimate limited governmental operations, not to redistribute wealth.

    Individual redress of grievances occurs through petition of representatives and the judicial system.

    The government cannot “control the means of production” or engage in “central planning” or otherwise control and direct free enterprise.

    The government cannot take private property from one man and make it the private properly of another.

    No redistribution of wealth in any form, welfare, food stamps, affirmative action (jobs are private property and “money”), Social Services, WIC, utility subsidies, Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, HAMP, HARP, teacher union strikes, governmental worker union strikes, etc.

    Americans have the right to private property, real and personal or “moveable” property.
    The limited government cannot redistribute the private property of free individuals.

    You can’t take money from one man to give it to another.

    You can’t take private property from one man to give private property to another.

    Private property rights, per the Constitution, are violated once government makes private property public property in order to redistribute it.

    You are confusing the principles of the Communist Manifesto which are different from the American founding documents and came along 72 years later precisely because they are different.

    The principles of the Communist Manifesto take the dominion of American individual freedom and give dominion to the collective.

    The American thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance.

    People must adapt to and live with the consequences of freedom.

  6. Olly…I had several exchanges with NP on June 20th, which happened to be Father’s Day. A few of us attempted to explain some basics about the difficulty of amending our Constitution, and other issues.
    That was a waste of time. I had thought about the advice Steve Martin’s adoptive Black Father gave to Martin’s character as he was about to strike out on his own.
    And I am convinced that NP could really have something to contribute if he took that same advice.

  7. Go back and like at your first several statements, NP. You clearly stated that the U.S. IS an aristocracy, that our system IS not working, etc.
    Then you go back and cite examples from 150+ years ago to back that up. You might try reading our Constitution, then attempt to make the case t hat our Constitution serves the aristocracy at the expense of all others.
    Try being current and specific…which specific elements of the U. S. Constitution gives your aristocracy power at the expense of the rest.
    Is that the reason that about half of the dozen U/S. Presidents in my lifetime have come from modest circumstances?

  8. It’s too bad your exhausted; I’m fully charged at this point.

    I will not disagree with you that crony capitalism is a major problem, but that is not the fault of the system. The old saying goes, we get the government we deserve and right now we deserve the abusive, administrative state that we allowed to be created.

    Lincoln said a house divided cannot stand. We could not survive as one republic with free and slave states. Fortunately freedom won the day. We are at that point again but today we need to decide if we want the constitutionally-limited government and restore the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights OR we go with the progressive plan and the all powerful administrative state. We cannot be both for much longer.

    Rest assured, if we end up with the latter we will certainly collapse once the people wake up and recognize ‘utopia for thee’ is not in their future. Think the list of grievances found in the Declaration of Independence and that’s when we will be ready to return to the former..

    1. To: Olly: Now we are getting somewhere. Some common ground at last.

      President Lincoln was one smart cookie and had a wonderful command of language. Some of his quotations are truly legendary.

      I don’t know what would have happened in the United States did split. Lincoln thought it inconceivable but I rather think Jefferson Davies had different ideas?

      President Lincoln said: “Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power”. And this is the greatest danger to choose a president with character and not have him shot…..

  9. The success of the Chinese economy must be due to the “collective democracy” and freedom over individual freedom. You stated that the two were incompatible, NP, and advised America to go for “collective freedom”

    1. To: Tom Nash

      America professes to be a democracy and China doesn’t.

      America makes a BIG THING about Freedom and yet didn’t grant its citizens anything like the freedom it professed until quite recently.

      There is no doubt America has made great progress especially since 1960.

      All I am saying is: Long may that continue.

      And it will continue through consensus but can be destroyed by unelected malevolence.

      You all need to think really hard about what you are really saying and don’t be hoodwinked.

  10. NP,
    Why should a nation have a lifespan? That’s like saying I’m going to die anyway so why should I bother putting food in my mouth or exercise. Any nation CAN survive, it requires a study of history to understand what makes them collapse and that’s precisely what the framers did in preparation for our independence. Instead of teaching this history though (which is being erased by progressives), our educational system teaches only the history that promotes their idea of a utopian society. I am unaware of any nation that has survived that kind of “progress”.

    1. To Olly:

      I think I said Empires have a life span. This is on the basis of history.

      All Empires crumbled in the end.

      I was equating America’s sphere of global influence as an “Empire” for want of a better word. If this analogy is correct it will have a lifespan, in line with other Empires.

  11. Your quote however IS NOT from our Constitution, it is from our Declaration of Independence. Our constitution would never have been ratified had they required our culture to shift immediately. That’s not how change works (as we are discovering today). Our constitution does not DO anything, it’s the people that get elected that do and again, if they aren’t interested in the vision then it makes it very difficult to close the gap. We don’t suffer because the framer’s gave us a flawed system, we suffer because people are naturally flawed. Your idea of progress won’t change that fact.

    1. I wish that was true that the people that get elected that do the business.

      But the evidence is that unelected Big Business calls the shots and his is the greatest problem America faces.

      It all gets back to the differences between individual rights and rights of the masses and I’ve explained this to the point of exhaustion.

      I am still optimistic that this matter will be eventually be addressed, but this will require some insight which at the moment appears to be rejected.

  12. So, NP, your statement about the U.S. system not working for 225 years is based on the Civil War, slavery, and conquest of Indian territory.
    That is an EXTREMELY weak attempt to support your contention that the American system does not work, and that the population is subservient to the aristocracy.
    Clearly, the “half free, half slave” provision in our Constitution was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing our Civil War. (There were other attempts to “keep thinks together” ….the Missouri Compromise and the Kansas Nebraska act were two major ones.
    You may not be aware of this, but a major outcome of the Civil War was that the United States remained the United States. You may also be unaware that a Constitutional Amendment abolished slavery once and for all.
    You bring up a 150 year old civil war as evidence that the U.S. is an aristocracy, and that our system does not work??!! That is really, really, lame…but typical.

    1. Tom Nash:

      Its not weak at all. There was only freedom in 1776 if you were rich, white and male.

      This isn’t freedom…

      Its nonsense.

      1. ninianpeckitt – you are so wrong. In 1776 and during the Revolution many free black fought on the side of the Rebels. Some black slaves fought for the British. And they fought very bravely.

        1. To Paul Schulte:

          Yes I did know that free back slaves fought on both sides. I would think that all permutations occurred. Robert E Lee if I remember correctly was an anti slaver but fought for Virginia as a patriot. His reward as I understand it was to see his Home/Estate turned into Arlington Cemetery.

          So all sorts of things were going on….

  13. “At the heart of Western exceptionalism are freedom and reason, and it is not the Progressives but the more genuine champions of liberty who make the most honest use of these. Progressives slip stream their currents that the more classically liberal (i.e., contemporary conservatives) directly ride. Nonetheless, Progressives would do themselves and the world a favor by waking up to all they owe the West. If the West goes down, it’s likely to take Progressivism with it.”

    http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2015/06/29/10-things-progressives-owe-to-western-civilization/

    1. Olly: Western Exceptionalism

      I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. The West has made a huge contribution as champions of liberty. I would go further and say they have set the Gold Standard – especially the United States which, has probably had one of the greatest (hopefully positive) effects on modern history.

      But like any “Empire”, for want of a better word, it has a lifespan.

      America will not always be top dog and other Powers are in the wings notably China, which I think now has the largest global economy? The natural progression in State development would appear to be towards some form of democracy in the end?

      I think this is happening in China where free enterprise is now flourishing. But democracy as we know it, will take time.

      Kaiser Wilhelm famously said “Let China sleep, for when she wakes the World shall tremble”.

      Only time will tell if he was right.

  14. Democratic Freedom

    See https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WF.CHAP3.HTM

    Constitutionally, it says, the founders of the United States established a republic, not a democracy.

    My issue with the constitution is that its rhetoric:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . . ”

    This was never implemented in society.

    In the passage above, note that it only spoke of men and left women to be dealt with at Salem.

    In effect it was a document that has been misrepresented for 225 years for political reasons and to cherish the Birth of a New Nation. I have no issue with that. It is important that a National Identity is Created and Celebrated.

    But as far as it being true, that is a different matter…..

  16. Ninianpeckitt,

    You clearly lack the fundamental understanding of what the Declaration of Independence expressed and the subsequent constitution that arose from that charter. It really is no different in principle for the leadership of any organization today in putting together a strategic plan. They get consensus on a vision for the organization, they define the mission and establish the guiding principles as to how the organization will conduct themselves. They will examine the gap between the organization today and the vision. They will then establish goals that begin to narrow the gap and measure along the way.

    The DoI is that vision for America. The framers weren’t delusional. They knew quite well we were nowhere near, as a nation, the vision expressed in the DoI, but they set us on the path to achieve it. The preamble states “In order to form a more perfect Union” which points directly to the vision of the framers. The constitution embodies those guiding principles on how the government was to lead this nation towards that vision.

    There is nothing inherently flawed in what the framer’s envisioned; it has simply been hijacked by people with a completely different vision. They provided enough warnings for the American people to be aware this would happen but they failed to account for the potential power of ignorant people. We actually have individuals today giving up fundamental rights to the government for the promise the government will meet all their needs. This is supposed to be a constitutional republic with a separation of powers; not a government hopefully headed by a benevolent dictator. THAT has never ended well.

    If the progressives want that form of government then instead of insidiously manufacturing their shadow government on top of our constitutional framework then step out from behind this façade and tell the American people what it will look like when they are done. If it’s what the people want then so be it, but stop pretending this progressive form of government has any desire to fulfill their chartered purpose; to secure the inalienable rights of the people.

    1. To Olly

      No I haven’t. I have demonstrated that I want to understand unlike some others.

      I have posted some pretty conclusive evidence to support my argument and this is supported by Americans with far greater knowledge and eloquence.

      Quod Erat Demonstratum

      1. ninianpeckitt – you have demonstrated opinions but never evidence.

  17. The Wise One informs us that “the American system can never work,” and that “the founding fathers had no idea what they were doing”.
    He also states that Americans are victimized to this day by a structure that the founding fathers put into place c. 225 years ago. That system, he states, was/is for the primary benefit of the aristocracy.
    The founding fathers were unfortunately operating without the benefit of advice from the Wise One. They could do no better than to craft a constitution that has endured for 225 years….this does not bolster his statement that the American system can never work.
    But at least we now know that there is hope…but simply scrapping (or ” easily ” amending) our Constitution, by having national referendums, by recognizing that we are all victims of an aristocratic structure that has continued for 225 years by design of the framers of the constitution, we can make it all better.
    Does anyone know of a British website were ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and arrogant Americans can tell them how to fundamentally transform their system?

    1. To Tom Nash:

      But it didn’t endure for 225 years. Just 90 years later you fought a Civil War with more casualties than in all your other wars put together. How is that a success? Canada didn’t suffer this indignity…..

      This is what happens when you let loose the Founding Fathers to author the American Constitution:

      Freedom for Blacks, Freedom for Native Indians, Freedom for the Royalists who had to flee to Canada to get that. Votes for women. It’s all there…. in black and white….. Tom you are talking complete nonsense. You are saying things you want to be true because it concerns a story you hold dear.

      Is there not just the slightest chance the slightest bit of Shame in the Constitution in 1776? You don’t have to be a Wise One to see the philosophical chasm in the arguments presented. There wasn’t anything “Fatherly” about it. It was about “Control” of the Masses by the Few.

      But having emphasised this point for our Unbelievers, democracy has an innate lividity and America graduated in style with the reforms of the 1960s after a great deal of civil unrest by those wanting to exert their own personal freedoms over the masses.

      It was only after this that America started to made real progress in Freedom and could cast the original document of the Founding Fathers to the museum. We need to remember that on 1776 the freedom to elect a black president was somewhat remote, even one who was a “Natural Born Citizen”.

      The Founding Father’s were anything but paternal if the truth is important but they did make a start. And in the 21st Century you have a black president.

      Now that IS a statement of freedom regardless of your politics but it took 225 years to achieve.

      John McCain’s concessionary speech will go down in history as one of the greatest political speeches of all time and demonstrated statesman like qualities, which fate determined would not unite the Nation.

      https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/mobile/search?hspart=cheetah&hsimp=yhsm-cheetah_001&p=john+mccain+defeat+speech

      So there is every chance America will achieve the Promised Land, but it didn’t get there in 1776 despite the propaganda.

      1. ninianpeckitt – anything here about women or blacks voting? A black Prime Minister, per chance?

        Magna Carta Translation
        [Preamble] Edward by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine sends greetings to all to whom the present letters come. We have inspected the great charter of the lord Henry, late King of England, our father, concerning the liberties of England in these words:

        Henry by the grace of God King of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine and count of Anjou sends greetings to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, sheriffs, reeves, ministers and all his bailiffs and faithful men inspecting the present charter. Know that we, at the prompting of God and for the health of our soul and the souls of our ancestors and successors, for the glory of holy Church and the improvement of our realm, freely and out of our good will have given and granted to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons and all of our realm these liberties written below to hold in our realm of England in perpetuity.

        [1] In the first place we grant to God and confirm by this our present charter for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity that the English Church is to be free and to have all its rights fully and its liberties entirely. We furthermore grant and give to all the freemen of our realm for ourselves and our heirs in perpetuity the liberties written below to have and to hold to them and their heirs from us and our heirs in perpetuity.

        [2] If any of our earls or barons, or anyone else holding from us in chief by military service should die, and should his heir be of full age and owe relief, the heir is to have his inheritance for the ancient relief, namely the heir or heirs of an earl for a whole county £100, the heir or heirs of a baron for a whole barony 100 marks, the heir or heirs of a knight for a whole knight’s fee 100 shillings at most, and he who owes less will give less, according to the ancient custom of (knights’) fees.

        [3] If, however, the heir of such a person is under age, his lord is not to have custody of him and his land until he has taken homage from the heir, and after such an heir has been in custody, when he comes of age, namely at twenty-one years old, he is to have his inheritance without relief and without fine, saving that if, whilst under age, he is made a knight, his land will nonetheless remain in the custody of his lords until the aforesaid term.

        [4] The keeper of the land of such an heir who is under age is only to take reasonable receipts from the heir’s land and reasonable customs and reasonable services, and this without destruction or waste of men or things. And if we assign custody of any such land to a sheriff or to anyone else who should answer to us for the issues, and such a person should commit destruction or waste, we will take recompense from him and the land will be assigned to two law-worthy and discreet men of that fee who will answer to us or to the person to whom we assign such land for the land’s issues. And if we give or sell to anyone custody of any such land and that person commits destruction or waste, he is to lose custody and the land is to be assigned to two law-worthy and discreet men of that fee who similarly will answer to us as is aforesaid.

        [5] The keeper, for as long as he has the custody of the land of such (an heir), is to maintain the houses, parks, fishponds, ponds, mills and other things pertaining to that land from the issues of the same land, and he will restore to the heir, when the heir comes to full age, all his land stocked with ploughs and all other things in at least the same condition as when he received it. All these things are to be observed in the custodies of archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbeys, priories, churches and vacant offices which pertain to us, save that such custodies ought not to be sold.

        [6] Heirs are to be married without disparagement.

        [7] A widow, after the death of her husband, is immediately and without any difficulty to have her marriage portion and her inheritance, nor is she to pay anything for her dower or her marriage portion or for her inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of her husband’s death, and she shall remain in the chief dwelling place of her husband for forty days after her husband’s death, within which time dower will be assigned her if it has not already been assigned, unless that house is a castle, and if it is a castle which she leaves, then a suitable house will immediately be provided for her in which she may properly dwell until her dower is assigned to her in accordance with what is aforesaid, and in the meantime she is to have her reasonable necessities (estoverium) from the common property. As dower she will be assigned the third part of all the lands of her husband which were his during his lifetime, save when she was dowered with less at the church door. No widow shall be distrained to marry for so long as she wishes to live without a husband, provided that she gives surety that she will not marry without our assent if she holds of us, or without the assent of her lord, if she holds of another.

        [8] Neither we nor our bailiffs will seize any land or rent for any debt, as long as the existing chattels of the debtor suffice for the payment of the debt and as long as the debtor is ready to pay the debt, nor will the debtor’s guarantors be distrained for so long as the principal debtor is able to pay the debt; and should the principal debtor default in his payment of the debt, not having the means to repay it, or should he refuse to pay it despite being able to do so, the guarantors will answer for the debt and, if they wish, they are to have the lands and rents of the debtor until they are repaid the debt that previously they paid on behalf of the debtor, unless the principal debtor can show that he is quit in respect to these guarantors.

        [9] The city of London is to have all its ancient liberties and customs. Moreover we wish and grant that all other cities and boroughs and vills and the barons of the Cinque Ports and all ports are to have all their liberties and free customs.

        [10] No-one is to be distrained to do more service for a knight’s fee or for any other free tenement than is due from it.

        [11] Common pleas are not to follow our court but are to be held in a certain fixed place.

        [12] Recognisances of novel disseisin and of mort d’ancestor are not to be taken save in their particular counties and in the following way. We or, should we be outside the realm, our chief justiciar, will send our justices once a year to each county, so that, together with the knights of the counties, that may take the aforesaid assizes in the counties; and those assizes which cannot be completed in that visitation of the county by our aforesaid justices assigned to take the said assizes are to be completed elsewhere by the justices in their visitation; and those which cannot be completed by them on account of the difficulty of various articles (of law) are to be referred to our justices of the Bench and completed there.

        [13] Assizes of darrein presentment are always to be taken before our justices of the Bench and are to be completed there.

        [14] A freeman is not to be amerced for a small offence save in accordance with the manner of the offence, and for a major offence according to its magnitude, saving his sufficiency (salvo contenemento suo), and a merchant likewise, saving his merchandise, and any villain other than one of our own is to be amerced in the same way, saving his necessity (salvo waynagio) should he fall into our mercy, and none of the aforesaid amercements is to be imposed save by the oath of honest and law-worthy men of the neighbourhood. Earls and barons are not to be amerced save by their peers and only in accordance with the manner of their offence.

        [15] No town or free man is to be distrained to make bridges or bank works save for those that ought to do so of old and by right.

        [16] No bank works of any sort are to be kept up save for those that were in defense in the time of King H(enry II) our grandfather and in the same places and on the same terms as was customary in his time.

        [17] No sheriff, constable, coroner or any other of our bailiffs is to hold pleas of our crown.

        [18] If anyone holding a lay fee from us should die, and our sheriff or bailiff shows our letters patent containing our summons for a debt that the dead man owed us, our sheriff or bailiff is permitted to attach and enroll all the goods and chattels of the dead man found in lay fee, to the value of the said debt, by view of law-worthy men, so that nothing is to be removed thence until the debt that remains is paid to us, and the remainder is to be released to the executors to discharge the will of the dead man, and if nothing is owed to us from such a person, all the chattels are to pass to the (use of) the dead man, saving to the dead man’s wife and children their reasonable portion.

        [19] No constable or his bailiff is to take corn or other chattels from anyone who not themselves of a vill where a castle is built, unless the constable or his bailiff immediately offers money in payment of obtains a respite by the wish of the seller. If the person whose corn or chattels are taken is of such a vill, then the constable or his bailiff is to pay the purchase price within forty days.

        [20] No constable is to distrain any knight to give money for castle guard if the knight is willing to do such guard in person or by proxy of any other honest man, should the knight be prevented from doing so by just cause. And if we take or send such a knight into the army, he is to be quit of (castle) guard in accordance with the length of time the we have him in the army for the fee for which he has done service in the army.

        [21] No sheriff or bailiff of ours or of anyone else is to take anyone’s horses or carts to make carriage, unless he renders the payment customarily due, namely for a two-horse cart ten pence per day, and for a three-horse cart fourteen pence per day. No demesne cart belonging to any churchman or knight or any other lady (sic) is to be taken by our bailiffs, nor will we or our bailiffs or anyone else take someone else’s timber for a castle or any other of our business save by the will of he to whom the timber belongs.

        [22] We shall not hold the lands of those convicted of felony save for a year and a day, whereafter such land is to be restored to the lords of the fees.

        [23] All fish weirs (kidelli) on the Thames and the Medway and throughout England are to be entirely dismantled, save on the sea coast.

        [24] The writ called ‘praecipe’ is not to be issued to anyone in respect to any free tenement in such a way that a free man might lose his court.

        [25] There is to be a single measure for wine throughout our realm, and a single measure for ale, and a single measure for Corn, that is to say the London quarter, and a single breadth for dyed cloth, russets, and haberjects, that is to say two yards within the lists. And it shall be the same for weights as for measures.

        [26] Henceforth there is to be nothing given for a writ of inquest from the person seeking an inquest of life or member, but such a writ is to be given freely and is not to be denied.

        [27] If any persons hold from us at fee farm or in socage or burgage, and hold land from another by knight service, we are not, by virtue of such a fee farm or socage or burgage, to have custody of the heir or their land which pertains to another’s fee, nor are we to have custody of such a fee farm or socage or burgage unless this fee farm owes knight service. We are not to have the custody of an heir or of any land which is held from another by knight service on the pretext of some small serjeanty held from us by service of rendering us knives or arrows or suchlike things.

        [28] No bailiff is henceforth to put any man on his open law or on oath simply by virtue of his spoken word, without reliable witnesses being produced for the same.

        [29] No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land. To no-one will we sell or deny of delay right or justice.

        [30] All merchants, unless they have been previously and publicly forbidden, are to have safe and secure conduct in leaving and coming to England and in staying and going through England both by land and by water to buy and to sell, without any evil exactions, according to the ancient and right customs, save in time of war, and if they should be from a land at war against us and be found in our land at the beginning of the war, they are to be attached without damage to their bodies or goods until it is established by us or our chief justiciar in what way the merchants of our land are treated who at such a time are found in the land that is at war with us, and if our merchants are safe there, the other merchants are to be safe in our land.

        [31] If anyone dies holding of any escheat such as the honour of Wallingford, Boulogne, Nottingham, Lancaster or of other escheats which are in our hands and which are baronies, his heir is not to give any other relief or render any other service to us that would not have been rendered to the baron if the barony were still held by a baron, and we shall hold such things in the same way as the baron held them, nor, on account of such a barony or escheat, are we to have the escheat or custody of any of our men unless the man who held the barony or the escheat held elsewhere from us in chief.

        [32] No free man is henceforth to give or sell any more of his land to anyone, unless the residue of his land is sufficient to render due service to the lord of the fee as pertains to that fee.

        [33] All patrons of abbeys which have charters of the kings of England over advowson or ancient tenure or possession are to have the custody of such abbeys when they fall vacant just as they ought to have and as is declared above.

        [34] No-one is to be taken or imprisoned on the appeal of woman for the death of anyone save for the death of that woman’s husband.

        [35] No county court is to be held save from month to month, and where the greater term used to be held, so will it be in future, nor will any sheriff or his bailiff make his tourn through the hundred save for twice a year and only in the place that is due and customary, namely once after Easter and again after Michaelmas, and the view of frankpledge is to be taken at the Michaelmas term without exception, in such a way that every man is to have his liberties which he had or used to have in the time of King H(enry II) my grandfather or which he has acquired since. The view of frankpledge is to be taken so that our peace be held and so that the tithing is to be held entire as it used to be, and so that the sheriff does not seek exceptions but remains content with that which the sheriff used to have in taking the view in the time of King H(enry) our grandfather.

        [36] Nor is it permitted to anyone to give his land to a religious house in such a way that he receives it back from such a house to hold, nor is it permitted to any religious house to accept the land of anyone in such way that the land is restored to the person from whom it was received to hold. If anyone henceforth gives his land in such a way to any religious house and is convicted of the same, the gift is to be entirely quashed and such land is to revert to the lord of that fee.

        [37] Scutage furthermore is to be taken as it used to be in the time of King H(enry) our grandfather, and all liberties and free customs shall be preserved to archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, Templars, Hospitallers, earls, barons and all others, both ecclesiastical and secular persons, just as they formerly had.

        All these aforesaid customs and liberties which we have granted to be held in our realm in so far as pertains to us are to be observed by all of our realm, both clergy and laity, in so far as pertains to them in respect to their own men. For this gift and grant of these liberties and of others contained in our charter over the liberties of the forest, the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, knights, fee holders and all of our realm have given us a fifteenth part of all their movable goods. Moreover we grant to them for us and our heirs that neither we nor our heirs will seek anything by which the liberties contained in this charter might be infringed or damaged, and should anything be obtained from anyone against this it is to count for nothing and to be held as nothing. With these witnesses: the lord S(tephen) archbishop of Canterbury, E(ustace) bishop of London, J(ocelin) bishop of Bath, P(eter) bishop of Winchester, H(ugh) bishop of Lincoln, R(ichard) bishop of Salisbury, W. bishop of Rochester, W(illiam) bishop of Worcester, J(ohn) bishop of Ely, H(ugh) bishop of Hereford, R(anulf) bishop of Chichester, W(illiam) bishop of Exeter, the abbot of (Bury) St Edmunds, the abbot of St Albans, the abbot of Battle, the abbot of St Augustine’s Canterbury, the abbot of Evesham, the abbot of Westminster, the abbot of Peterborough, the abbot of Reading, the abbot of Abingdon, the abbot of Malmesbury, the abbot of Winchcombe, the abbot of Hyde (Winchester), the abbot of Chertsey, the abbot of Sherborne, the abbot of Cerne, the abbot of Abbotsbury, the abbot of Milton (Abbas), the abbot of Selby, the abbot of Cirencester, H(ubert) de Burgh the justiciar, H. earl of Chester and Lincoln, W(illiam) earl of Salisbury, W(illiam) earl Warenne, G. de Clare earl of Gloucester and Hertford, W(illiam) de Ferrers earl of Derby, W(illiam) de Mandeville earl of Essex, H(ugh) Bigod earl of Norfolk, W(illiam) earl Aumale, H(umphrey) earl of Hereford, J(ohn) constable of Chester, R(obert) de Ros, R(obert) fitz Walter, R(obert) de Vieuxpont, W(illiam) Brewer, R(ichard) de Montfiquet, P(eter) fitz Herbert, W(illiam) de Aubigné, G. Gresley, F. de Braose, J(ohn) of Monmouth, J(ohn) fitz Alan, H(ugh) de Mortemer, W(illiam) de Beauchamp, W(illiam) de St John, P(eter) de Maulay, Brian de Lisle, Th(omas) of Moulton, R(ichard) de Argentan, G(eoffrey) de Neville, W(illiam) Mauduit, J(ohn) de Baalon and others. Given at Westminster on the eleventh day of February in the ninth year of our reign.

        We, holding these aforesaid gifts and grants to be right and welcome, conceed and confirm them for ourselves and our heirs and by the terms of the present (letters) renew them, wishing and granting for ourselves and our heirs that the aforesaid charter is to be firmly and inviably observed in all and each of its articles in perpetuity, including any articles contained in the same charter which by chance have not to date been observed. In testimony of which we have had made these our letters patent. Witnessed by Edward our son, at Westminster on the twelfth day of October in the twenty-fifth year of our reign. (Chancery warranty by John of) Stowe.

        Translation by Professor Nicholas Vincent, Copyright Sotheby’s Inc. 2007

        1. To Paul:

          No there isn’t.

          Nearly all Magna Carta was revoked/repealed in 19th and 20th Centuries so that the principles were adapted to modern society. This also happened to your own Constitution and Bill of Rights. And the process is not yet finished. Democracy continues to evolve through a process like Natural Selection.

          The difference between my argument and yours, is that you think Freedom was achieved in 1776 and I know it wasn’t. I’ve provided conclusive argument/evidence that proves it. It may be very annoying but it’s true.

          The issue with which you are having difficulty grasping, or frankly that you just don’t want to entertain, is that Democratic Freedom is an evolving process and it simply didn’t exist in 1776 despite all the protestations to the contrary. But like Magna Carta is was an important start. I’m sure that Chelsea Clinton understands all of this, and I’m sure that you do too.

          There simply isn’t any evidence to counter the argument of a progression in the development of democractic freedom. This is the modus operandi of democracy and your amendment system confirms that.

          But there is evidence that democratic freedoms are now beginning to appear in American Society. And this is a good thing, and was this initiated by your Founding Fathers, not achieved by them.

          But you are still saddled with a very wealthy power base that is unelected and calls the shots. This is probably the greatest problem you face. I have every confidence that America will prevail and not sacrifice its ward won stages of freedom for the benefit of the Few.

  18. ninianpeckitt,
    One more thing; I’m not clear as to who these people are that you have angered. You must have a very low bar if what I’ve seen on here constitutes anger for you. You have done a fairly good job of slipping in with some benign commentary but it’s apparent by your posts today that you have a progressive agenda that should endear you to quite a few folks here.

    Your tell by the way was claiming “the Founding Fathers had no idea what they were doing”. You see, that all depends on what you want the outcome to be. The modern progressive simply does not agree with those ‘old white guys’ and there is the rub.

  19. My legend grew with the passage of my story over generations. That is how folklore works. If one cares to see the new and instant folklore, just look at the comments made by a folklorist at 9:24pm and 9:27pm last night. A crowd grew from 10,000 to 13,000 in just 3 minutes.

  20. Had the Framer’s envisioned our’s to be a democracy then I would tend to agree with you however that was not their intent. You don’t secure natural rights in a democracy which is precisely what that collective mentality is actively pursuing. So be it. Thanks for your pearls anyway.

Comments are closed.